So? So what if it’s small? Why you are so keen to diminish the validity of a group of critics because it’s so small? So most customers are satisfied - fine. Does that make the small group of dissatisfied ones wrong to be vocal?

As a matter of interest why else do you think people would 'move on' except because they'd had a negative experience?

You may take responsibility for your actions, but the people in this Forum don't. I may understand why you may have had problems in "moving on" from that Sai Baba, but there is nothing that is stopping these people from doing so, besides an obsessive trait that they have developed, each for his/her own reasons. Most people that want to stop practicing K, do so.

Yea right - and why don’t they care to talk about it much? Maybe because they don’t want anything more to do with it. Maybe they’re the one’s who never really ‘practiced’ so much in the first place and who can more flippantly let it go? Have you thought about that? I doubt it.

So Andries is allowed to have problems moving on from Sai Baba but not ex-premies. How kind...and illogical. So what's the difference then?

By the way I belong to many forums (mainly related to my work) - all which I frequent far more than this one - does that mean I’m obsessed with those topics too?

And remember before in your ‘outrage’ you tar everyone here with your ‘Apostate’ brush:

I personally don’t mind if you, Rawat and other premies carry on doing your thing ad infinitum..I don’t want to stop you. I maybe did a few years ago but I really don’t care to now. That is the truth. I ACCEPT YOU ARE PRACTICING YOUR BELIEF AND I WON”T INTERFERE. (Unless you call it ‘interfering’ to talk about Rawat here). If people want to enrol and practice knowledge.. fine by me.

Also I totally take responsibility for what I say here and elsewhere.

If you think I or anyone else here is lying then you're free to explain exactly what you think are lies, produce some evidence to the contrary and voice your reasonable objection -that's welcome - if you’re confident those lies amount to slander then sue! Otherwise you're just frothing rather inneffectually.

The only reason I reply to you is that you seem to be more conscious and honest with yourself than most...For your benefit alone, I offer these excerpts:

You single out and snuggle up to Andries (not an apostate in your eyes because he’s never been a Premie) to flatter and side with. Isn’t this a bit puerile?

How "reliable" can be the testimony of a wife in a divorce proceeding? Reliable may be wrong word, "tainted" would be better

Again so what? The wife’s testimony may be ‘tainted’ but then so might the husband’s and other witnesses. Then again her testimony might NOT be tainted. She might be telling the absolute un-tainted truth. More importantly, because of this possibility, any court should ethically consider her testimony equally as valid as anyone elses. Do you agree or not?